Forked Thread: Shaking it Off

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

IME, players have an easy time with "PCs should be heroes" and a harder time with "I know the rules say you can cast Cure Light on that guy 'cause it'll interfere with his 'final words'." or "I know the rules say you can be bopping up tomorrow, and I know that you've heard the orc army is marching on the village where you live, but you really need to take a week's rest before doing anything about it."

That's a sandbox campaign? If it is - why not have the characters go on - apparently, their adventure isn't really over yet, and they have to face even stronger foes despite the fact that none of the are fully rested and healed.

How would your rules benefit a group in that situation, either? Why are they not pressed by the situation - they can, after all, still go on, even if they only have a subset of their regular hit points. They are still partially healed, and can survive a few hits.

If you really need a rules construct, you could introduce a "Quest Aftermath" - after you have made your quest, you are fatigued until you have rested for 1 week. And create a magical ritual/spell that removes these fatigue.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's a sandbox campaign? If it is - why not have the characters go on - apparently, their adventure isn't really over yet, and they have to face even stronger foes despite the fact that none of the are fully rested and healed.

Events happen in a sandbox campaign, you know.

A sandbox campaign doesn't presume that the PCs will do X or Y, but that doesn't mean that the world is static. If Villian Zed is trying to overrun the Western Lands, then the PCs run into evidence of Villian Zed's plots. They decide what (if anything) to do. If they do nothing, perhaps Villian Zed succeeds.

A good sandbox campaign must provide context for players to make choices in. Part of that context is the world -- and NPCs -- moving around them.

The difference between a sandbox and an adventure path, in this case, is that in the sandbox the PCs can say "Well, I hope Sarah Jane makes it out okay. We're too wounded to do anything." In an adventure path, the predetermined layout of the game is set, and wounded or not the PCs are expected to act.

How would your rules benefit a group in that situation, either? Why are they not pressed by the situation - they can, after all, still go on, even if they only have a subset of their regular hit points. They are still partially healed, and can survive a few hits.

Exactly so. Which is very different from their being at full due to their Wolverine-like healing surges. The lingering presence of injury changes the dynamic of the group -- they face an interesting choice. Should they accept greater risk because of the consequences, or should they suck up the consequences and wait until they are healed? Do they think they even could prevent the orcs from invading in their current state, even if they tried?

Questions like these make for an interesting game, IMHO.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly so. Which is very different from their being at full due to their Wolverine-like healing surges. The lingering presence of injury changes the dynamic of the group -- they face an interesting choice. Should they accept greater risk because of the consequences, or should they suck up the consequences and wait until they are healed? Do they think they even could prevent the orcs from invading in their current state, even if they tried?

Questions like these make for an interesting game, IMHO.


RC

I think you are wrong in your assumption on gameplay. In regular D&D, we can (but don't have to) run into the 15 minute adventuring paradigm - if there is no pressure or motivation to go on, resting early and often is expected, so that people can go "nova" in every encounter.

I think your paradigm will easily lead in the opposite direction - since people are always healed to a certain minimum of hit points, they will easily use these new number of hit points as their "standard". (either they will accept that they have only the maximum regainable number as standard, or they will treat any damage beyond that number as a reason to retreat).
And the DM can easily feel forced to provide encounters that work with this standard (he has to provide some of them anyway - otherwise, there would be no point in these rules).

 

[Raven Crowking]

The problem you describe exists only when resting is a "no brainer". When resting has its own perils, there is a choice to be made. And, since resting more than 5 minutes has no additional effect (unless you begin resting for days, as with normal, pre-4e healing), "shaking it off" doesn't end your adventuring day. In a resource-attrition model, anything that extends your resources extends the time you can operate.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem you describe exists only when resting is a "no brainer". When resting has its own perils, there is a choice to be made. And, since resting more than 5 minutes has no additional effect (unless you begin resting for days, as with normal, pre-4e healing), "shaking it off" doesn't end your adventuring day. In a resource-attrition model, anything that extends your resources extends the time you can operate.

I think you missed my point - I think what can happen now is that people will act as if the healable amount of resources is their "real" hit points. They will treat any situation where they can't recover all their resources using "Shake it Off" as a situation after which they have to rest for 8 hours/the day.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you missed my point - I think what can happen now is that people will act as if the healable amount of resources is their "real" hit points. They will treat any situation where they can't recover all their resources using "Shake it Off" as a situation after which they have to rest for 8 hours/the day.

I didn't miss your point. To a degree, you are correct. A player will pay more attention to damage that surpases what his character can shake off. In effect, "real" damage will be noted.

What you describe becomes a problem based on, IMHO, two factors:

(1) Only a fight that has a reasonable chance to kill you is challenging: An idea that appeared in 3e as a result of its particular focus, and misunderstanding of the CR/EL rules (by both home games and designers). When fights take hours to resolve, you naturally expect a lot more from each one. Yet, the more challenging the fight, the more resources get used, and the more sense it makes to go nova. IMHO, the design of 4e makes this problem worse, not better. We've discussed that before, based on the previews.

(2) Rest is not penalized. Things like wandering encounters and monsters building up their defenses exist not only to enhance verisimilitude, but to provide a "cattle prod" to keep PCs moving. The 1e DMG contained advice on how to handle PCs retreating and returning -- things should change as a result of the time away. I don't believe that advice made it into any later edition.

So long as the players face consequences both for resting and for pushing on, there is a tension between the two that makes for interesting choice. It is only when resting is consistently the obviously "right" choice that play falls apart.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I didn't miss your point. To a degree, you are correct. A player will pay more attention to damage that surpases what his character can shake off. In effect, "real" damage will be noted.

What you describe becomes a problem based on, IMHO, two factors:

(1) Only a fight that has a reasonable chance to kill you is challenging: An idea that appeared in 3e as a result of its particular focus, and misunderstanding of the CR/EL rules (by both home games and designers). When fights take hours to resolve, you naturally expect a lot more from each one. Yet, the more challenging the fight, the more resources get used, and the more sense it makes to go nova. IMHO, the design of 4e makes this problem worse, not better. We've discussed that before, based on the previews.

Yes. So I suppose we shouldn't try to rehash our old arguments.
I prefer each fight to feel challenging on its own. Challenge in a larger context (if we take too much damage so we need to heal, we might not make it in time, or risk death at a later point) is okay, but not sufficient.
(Death is the simplest, but not the only type of "Challenge" in this context - the enemy being able to escape with the McGuffin or merely his life, complete a ritual, sacrifice the virgin, or whatever else are alternative options. Of course, 4E defaults to assume "death", since the rest are dependent on story aspects)

(2) Rest is not penalized. Things like wandering encounters and monsters building up their defenses exist not only to enhance verisimilitude, but to provide a "cattle prod" to keep PCs moving. The 1e DMG contained advice on how to handle PCs retreating and returning -- things should change as a result of the time away. I don't believe that advice made it into any later edition.

Somehow I do it anway, despite not playing before 3E.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I prefer each fight to feel challenging on its own. Challenge in a larger context (if we take too much damage so we need to heal, we might not make it in time, or risk death at a later point) is okay, but not sufficient.

Whereas I require both fights that are challenging on their own, and challenge is a larger context. My version of the game will probably not be for you.

Somehow I do it anway, despite not playing before 3E.

Must be that you're a good DM?


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Must be that you're a good DM?

No. Just average. Unless I have a higher expectation was the average actually is.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. Just average. Unless I have a higher expectation was the average actually is.

Age and experience have greatly reduced my expectations of the average.


RC